Method for cleaning and preventing plugging in micro-irrigation systems

ABSTRACT

A micro-irrigation system cleaning method adds a formulation which contains a water-soluble organic acid which has a pK(1)a of less than about 4.0, and optionally a water-soluble phosphonate dispersant. The cleaning continues for a time period of from three to twenty-four hours in a static environment.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No.16/029,501, filed Jul. 6, 2018, pending, which is a continuation of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 14/311,718, filed Jun. 23, 2014, now U.S.Pat. No. 10,046,369, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 12/313,174, filed Nov. 18, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No.8,821,646, inventors Miller et al., for Compositions and Methods forPreventing Plugging in Micro-Irrigation Systems, which is acontinuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/342,905,filed Jan. 30, 2006, inventors Miller et al., for Compositions andMethods for Preventing Plugging in Micro-Irrigation Systems, each ofwhich is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods and compositions for cleaningmicro-irrigation systems.

The agriculture industry has developed the practice of adding plantnutrients and soil amendments to the plant environs, such as the soil,to enhance crop growth and subsequent yields. These fertilizers andamendments come in a variety of formulations depending on the specificcrop to be grown and its nutrient requirements.

Fertilization methods ultimately were facilitated by the practice ofadding inorganic fertilizers and soil amendments to the water being usedto irrigate the crops. The term “fertigation” is sometimes used for thiscombination of irrigation and fertilization. Although the earlytechniques were extremely crude by today's standards, the techniquesnonetheless obtained better yields and drastically minimized the laborof applying these fertilizers.

Today's high demand for crops (food crops and otherwise) has turnedagriculture into a technically-sophisticated business, and a business inwhich large corporate farms dominate the small family farm. Thetechnical challenges faced by the modern agricultural industry includeboth the ever-increasing need for arable land, especially in the westernand southwestern United States, and the decreasing availability andincreasing cost of water. To meet the need for water conservation,today's technology includes micro-irrigation systems that deliver veryprecise amounts of water directly to the plant that is being grown. Inthe past 20 to 30 years, a large percentage of crop producers in thewestern and southwestern United States have converted tomicro-irrigation systems utilizing this micro-irrigation technology.

Similar to the advent of “fertigation” practices generally, uponconversion to micro-irrigation systems, modern farmers began addingfertilizers and soil amendments to them. In micro-irrigation systems,unfortunately, water quality and the inclusion of fertilizers and otheradditives cause severe problems. The problems arise from a number offactors: (1) the micro-irrigation water is typically obtained fromwells, reservoir, lakes, or rivers which contain various amounts ofdissolved minerals; and (2) fertilizers, soil amendments and otheradditives can form insoluble salts and/or cause particulate formationwhen added to the water. Macro-irrigation systems mainly tolerate theseconditions, while micro-irrigation systems are extremely intolerant.

The sensitivity of micro-irrigation systems to water quality andadditives stems from the refinement of the components in amicro-irrigation system. In order to add precise amounts of waterdirectly to the plant or crop being irrigated, micro-irrigation systems,including subsurface systems, contain devices called emitters,micro-sprinklers or other such devices. These devices deliver thedesired precise amounts of water so long as they do not plug or foul.Plugging occurs when deposits, from any source, build up inside thesedevices. The smallest particle or foreign material can cause fouling ofthese devices, because these devices have very tiny orifices and/or along tortuous narrow passageway that provide the requisite pressure fordelivery of precise amounts of water in a uniform manner to each plantin the crop being irrigated.

The addition of fertilizers or other materials, for instance soilamendments, to the micro-irrigation water increases the loading ofinorganic salts over that already in the water. When the loading, or thecombined loading, is too high, the solubilities of at least some of thenaturally-occurring minerals and/or added compounds are exceeded andparticulate formation increases dramatically. When particulates form,significant deposits begin to build up throughout the entiremicro-irrigation system. The end result is plugging of the emitters ormicro-sprinklers. Plugging results in uneven distribution of water andnutrients to the crop being irrigated. In some cases, complete shut-downof the micro-irrigation system occurs. Therefore problem-free use ofadditives such as fertilizers and/or soil amendments and the like inmicro-irrigation systems is conventionally limited to the systems thatuse relatively pure water sources. When the water source is notrelatively pure, the fertilizer or soil amendment is often distributedto the crop by means other than through the micro-irrigation system,with the loss of “fertigation” benefits.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method of cleaning a micro-irrigationsystem using a system cleaning formulation comprising an aqueouscleaning-formulation solution containing a water-soluble organic acid,wherein the water-soluble organic acid has a pK(1)a of less than about4.0, and in some embodiments, a water-soluble organic acid and awater-soluble phosphonate dispersant (a water-soluble orthophosphonatedispersant).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Most naturally-occurring waters contain dissolved minerals that bythemselves can cause plugging in micro-irrigation systems. Waterbicarbonate alkalinity concentrations exceeding about 2 meq/liter (200ppm as CaCO₃) can cause calcium carbonate precipitation. Calciumconcentrations exceeding 2-3 meq/liter (100-150 ppm as CaCO₃) can causeprecipitates to form during the injection of phosphate fertilizers. Thesolubility chart below provides an overview of inorganic anion/cationincompatibilities, that is, anions and cations that, when both arepresent, lead to insoluble inorganic salt formation that can causeplugging in micro-irrigation systems.

CHART 1 Solubility Chart For Common Irrigation-Systems Anions AndCations Anion Cation Cl⁻ HCO₃ ⁻ OH⁻ NO₃ ⁻ CO₃ ⁻² SO₄ ⁻² S⁻² PO₄ ⁻³ Na⁺ SS S S S S S S K⁺ S S S S S S S S NH₄ ⁺ S S S S S S S S H⁺ S S H₂O S CO₂S H₂S S Ca⁺² S SS VSS S I VSS XXX I Mg⁺² S S I S VSS S XXX I Fe⁺² S SSVSS S VSS S I I Fe⁺³ S I I S I S XXX I Mn⁺² S XXX I S I S I I

In Chart 1, S means soluble (over 5,000 ppm), SS means slightly soluble(2,000 to 5,000 ppm), VSS means very slightly soluble (20-2,000 ppm), Imeans insoluble (<20 ppm) and XXX means does not form (is not acompound). From Kemmer, Frank N., Water: The Universal Solvent, BasicChemistry, p. 37, Nalco Chemical Company (1977).

As seen from the solubility information in Chart 1, the addition ofphosphates, such as phosphate fertilizers, to naturally-occurring watersthat contain hardness (calcium or magnesium) can cause precipitationthat would result in plugging of micro-irrigation system

Irrigation-System Cleaning Composition and Method

The typically most prevalent conditions that diminish the suitability ofthe water quality for micro-irrigation are: (1) inorganic loading of thesource water, (2) organic loading of the source water; (3) addition offertilizers and/or soil amendments to the source water; and (4)efficiency of the filtration system.

Inorganic Loading of the Source Water

Although irrigation water sources vary dramatically, they frequentlycontain a considerable amount of inorganic salts, dissolved hydrogensulfide and carbon dioxide. The presence of such constituents can leadto several fouling problems. High levels of calcium, magnesium andcarbon dioxide, at a basic pH (7 to 8 and higher), form significantamounts of insoluble (or only slightly soluble) calcium and magnesiumcarbonates. Under such pH conditions, iron and manganese, even at lowlevels, form significant levels of insoluble or only slightly solubleiron and manganese oxides. The propensity of these salts to precipitateout of solution is exacerbated in a micro-irrigation system because muchof the irrigation tubing is typically above ground and black in color.The irrigation tubing and emitters or micro-sprinklers usually have ablack coloration which has been added as a UV inhibitor to preventdeterioration of the plastic due to sunlight. The black colorationunfortunately exacerbates plugging or fouling problems because itabsorbs light and the light that is absorbed is converted to heat. Theheat raises the water temperature which escalates precipitation ofcalcium and magnesium carbonates (similar to the scale that builds up ona tea kettle). This increase in temperature of the irrigation componentsand subsequent precipitation of carbonate salts becomes even moredramatic when the micro-irrigation system is shut down and under “noflow” conditions. The significantly higher temperature inside the blackirrigation components under a no-flow condition evaporates irrigationwater, which increases the concentration of the constituents, causing ahigher degree of precipitation and even more plugging potential.

Biological Loading of the Source Water

Biological loading in the source water results from two major factors,namely algae and/or bacteria. Both algae and bacteria typically arepresent if surface water, such as a reservoir, canal, river or pond, isused as the source of the irrigation water. Bacteria and bacterialslimes typically also are present if the source of the irrigation wateris subsurface, such as a well. Regardless of the source of the water,these biological materials proliferate inside the micro-irrigationsystem and bind to the surfaces of the micro-irrigation system and tothe scale deposits in the system, ultimately fouling themicro-irrigation system.

Addition of Fertilizers and/or Soil Amendments to the Source Water

Fertilizers are generally defined as materials that add nutrient valueto the soil that enables enhanced growth and development of the plant orcrop. Soil amendments are generally defined as materials that enable thenutrients, already in the soil, to be more efficiently utilized andtransported to the plant or crop being grown. Regardless of whether thematerial is a fertilizer or soil amendment, these additives, when addedto a micro-irrigation system for distribution, can cause significantfouling of the micro-irrigation system and its components.

These problematic fertilizer and/or soil amendment additives includeinorganic materials such as: (1) the various NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus,and potassium) fertilizer formulations; (2) the diverse micronutrientformulations that can contain iron, zinc, or manganese, as well as otherheavy metals; and (3) the common inorganic soil amendments such asgypsum (calcium sulfate pentahydrate) and lime (calcium carbonate). Allof these additives can elevate the risk of fouling of themicro-irrigation system due to precipitation of inorganic salts. Chart 1above provides solubility data for common cation/anion combinations todemonstrate the precipitation and deposit formation potential thereof.In other words, Chart 1 shows the anions and cations that, when both arepresent, lead to insoluble inorganic salt formation that can causeplugging in micro-irrigation systems.

Organic additives used as fertilizers and/or soil amendments, such ascompost teas (liquid compost), fish emulsions and the like, aretypically made via a biological fermentation process. The bacteria thatalready proliferate in these additives exacerbate biological plugging ofthe micro-irrigation system.

Efficiency of the Filtration System

Whether the water source is surface or subsurface, freshly-pumpedirrigation water can contain large particulate material which can beremoved with a filtration system, such as a screen, disk, and/or sandmedia bed. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of fine particulatematter passes through the filtration system and binds with both organicmaterial and precipitating inorganic salts, forming larger particlesthat further cause fouling of the micro-irrigation system. Another, andworse, filtration-system related problem is the ill-considered practiceof adding fertilizers and/or soil amendments downstream of thefiltration system. This “downstream addition” practice eliminatesadditive-derived precipitates from plugging the filters, but frequentlyleads to severe deposits within the micro-irrigation system, which is acondition the filtration system is intended to prevent. Further, theseverity of emitter plugging due to “downstream addition” can even shutdown a micro-irrigation system and bring about a need for immediateremediation to avoid crop loss due to the lack of irrigation water.

Currently, the two most common methods for cleaning a micro-irrigationsystem are treatment with sulfuric acid or an adduct of sulfuric acidand urea (monocarbamide dihydrogen sulfate or MCDS) which iscommercially available under the brand name of N-pHURIC® from Agrium ofCalgary, Alberta, Canada. These two common irrigation system treatmentsare not, however, entirely satisfactory as demonstrated in the examplesbelow. In addition, both products are extremely dangerous to handle anduse because both are extremely corrosive. If not handled and usedproperly, these products can be hazardous for the user and harmful tothe micro-irrigation system.

The present cleaning composition and method provide a reliable, safe,economical, much less corrosive approach to cleaning a micro-irrigationsystem that has been compromised due fouling or plugging arising fromone or more sources such as those described above. The micro-irrigationsystem is cleaned by addition of a unique combination of a strongorganic acid and an ortho-phosphonate dispersant to the irrigationwater, or the organic acid or blend (combination) of organic acidswithout the dispersant. Cleaning of the micro-irrigation system isaccomplished with a deposit-removing amount of certain water-solubleorganic acids, such as and preferably formic acid (which is usedexemplary in most of the discussions below), usually and preferably incombination with a small amount of a dispersant, present in the water ofa micro-irrigation system for a period of time sufficient to remove,suspend and/or solubilize such deposits. The dispersant must besufficiently water soluble and the more preferred phosphonatedispersants are 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDPA) andamino tris(methylenephosphonic acid) (ATMP) and their sodium, potassiumand ammonium salts.

Dispersants of this type act upon deposits of inorganic scale andbiological materials to maintain them in a fine state of subdivision(microscopic), and the surface of these microscopic particles areelectrostatically charged, whereby they are prevented from agglomerationand from redeposition onto the surfaces of the micro-irrigation system.In addition, these dispersants are effective in the present method atvery low ppm dosages and afford substantial corrosion protection toferrous and non-ferrous metals components of a micro-irrigation system.

The formic acid, which may be used alone in the practice of theinvention, is commercially available. It is typically available inconcentrations ranging from 75 to 95 percent as formic acid in water.The phosphonate dispersants are also commercially available, typicallyas aqueous solutions ranging from 20 to 40 percent on an actives basis.The composition of formic acid and optional dispersant are fed into themicro-irrigation system in a shock treatment mode.

For a typical shock treatment, the formulation is fed into themicro-irrigation system at a rate (or level) of from about 1 to about 10kg, and preferably from about 3 to about 5 kg, actives per acre beingcurrently or actively served by the micro-irrigation system. For anapproximately 40 weight percent actives formulation, the preferred rateor level of feed is about 2 to 3 gallons per acre being currently oractively served by the system. The acres being currently or activelyserved by the system at any given time is typically not the entire fieldserved by a micro-irrigation system, but instead a block of the field orsystem that encompasses the acreage normally under irrigationsimultaneously. This “per acre” basis for determining feed rate presumesa reasonably constant or consistent irrigation-system water capacity peracre being served.

The optimum or near optimum feed rate, whereby an efficient andsuccessful, but not impractically excessive, concentration of theactives is fed to the irrigation water, depends on the water quality andthe extent to which the micro-irrigation system is compromised.

To accomplish a shock treatment, the present cleaning formulation (forexample, at a concentration of about 40 weight percent actives) istypically introduced into the micro-irrigation system at the manifoldjust before the micro-irrigation system enters the field. A typicaldrip-type or micro-irrigation pumping system pumps water at a rate ofapproximately 1000 gallons per minute, at a pressure of about 40 to 80psi. The present cleaning formulation is typically introduced into thewater of the micro-irrigation system, for instance and preferably via apositive displacement pump, at a rate of about 1.0 to about 1.5 gallonsper minute. Such a feed rate is about 0.1 to about 0.15 percent of therate at which the irrigation water is being pumped. A typical block tobe irrigated is about 20 acres. At the 1.0 to 1.5 gallon per minute feedrate of the formulation, the introduction of the formulation requiresabout 40 to 60 minutes. To insure the product is reaching the mostdistant ends of the irrigation block, the irrigation-water pH is testedat the end of the farthest point in the block. Untreated irrigationwater typically has a pH of 7.5 or greater. Upon introduction of theproduct to the irrigation water at the typical levels and ratesindicated here, the irrigation-water is acidified and its pH drops. Uponaddition of sufficient formulation (both as to covering the block beingserviced and as to sufficient concentration for the particularirrigation water), the irrigation-water pH seen at the farthest point ofthe active section of micro-irrigation system typically is about 2.5 toabout 3.0. Upon detection of sufficient coverage, by this or anothermethod, the irrigation-water feed is shut off, stopping its flow. Themicro-irrigation system, or that part of the system under treatment, isthen allowed to stand for a sufficient time period, which typically iswithin the range of about 3 to about 24 hours, after which themicro-irrigation system is flushed with water. This type of shocktreatment is typically done once or twice a growing season, butmicro-irrigation systems with severe plugging problems require a morefrequent treatment regime.

As mentioned above, the water quality of the irrigation water variesdramatically and the amount of the present cleaner formulation requiredfor cleaning a micro-irrigation system is preferably determined prior toimplementing the cleaning program. To establish the correct formulationlevel, a “demand curve” (or “titration curve”) is preferably generatedfor the source water used for irrigation. A demand curve is produced bydetermining the amount of the additive, such as the present formulation,required to change the source irrigation-water pH from its normal stateto a different, defined pH. Preferably the additive is addedincrementally, such as by titration of a dilute water solution thereof,to a known weight or volume sample of the irrigation water source whilethe pH of irrigation-water sample is monitored. This step of the presentmethod is illustrated in Cleaner Example 2 below.

Cleaner Comparative Example 1 and Example 2, Demand Curves

Demand curves were separately prepared for the commercial N-pHURIC®brand irrigation-system cleaner and for a formulation of the presentinvention containing about 40 weight percent actives, which actives wereprimarily formic acid plus a small amount of ATMP, using approximatelyequal samples of irrigation water from a grower's 20.5-acre irrigationblock which was experiencing fouling problems. In Cleaner ComparativeExample 1, an irrigation water sample of 112.8 grams was titrated with a0.0823 volume percent aqueous solution of the N-pHURIC® brandirrigation-system cleaner. In Cleaner Example 2, an irrigation-watersample of 121.1 grams was titrated with a 0.150 volume percent aqueoussolution of the formulation of the present invention. These statedconcentrations of the titrants are based on “as is” products, and arenot on an actives basis. The changes of the pH of the irrigation watersamples with increasing loading of the titrated products were recordedat intervals starting with the irrigation water samples' initial 7.8 pHdown to a pH of 2.0 for both examples. In each instance, the amount oftitrant required to lower the irrigation water pH to a defined value,which here was a pH of 3.0, was determined from the tabulated data.(Plots of the titrant versus pH prepared from the tabulated data wouldof course provide the same information, but were not needed in eitherinstance.) The “pH 3.0” product demands, that is, the volumes of theas-is or neat products required to lower the pH of 1,000 gallons ofirrigation water to a pH of 3.0, were calculated, each as shown below inthe respective Table 1 and Table 2 tabulated data.

TABLE 1 Cleaner Comparative Example 1 N-pHURIC ® Demand Curve ProductWeight Added (grams) Post-Addition Sample pH 0.00 7.8 0.31 7.7 0.61 7.40.99 7.2 1.24 6.5 1.49 5.8 1.63 5.0 1.85 4.0 2.21 3.5 2.37 3.0 2.58 2.52.65 2.0

The N-pHURIC® demand was calculated as follows. The amount of theproduct titrant at 0.0823 vol. percent required to lower the pH of 112.8grams of irrigation water to a pH of 3.0 was 2.37 grams. The calculationof the demand in terms of volume percent (converted from weights on aspecific gravity of 1.0 for water or typical water solutions) is setforth below in Equation (“Eq.”) (1) and is followed by its conversion togallons of product per 1,000 gallons of irrigation water.[(2.37 grams)×(0.0823%)]/(112.8 grams)=0.173% by volume  (1)

From Eq. (1), it is determined that the “pH 3.0” demand for theN-pHURIC® cleaner is 1.73 gallons/1,000 gallons of irrigation water.

TABLE 2 Cleaner Example 2 Formulation Demand Curve Product Weight Added(grams) Pest-Addition Sample pH 0.00 7.8 0.25 7.7 0.84 7.2 1.01 6.9 1.276.5 1.48 6.0 1.60 5.7 1.71 5.2 1.81 4.7 2.02 4.0 2.26 3.4 2.51 3.0 2.822.5 3.40 2.0

The present formulation demand was calculated as follows. The amount ofthe product titrant at 0.150 vol. percent required to lower the pH of121.1 grams of irrigation water to a pH of 3.0 was 2.51 grams. Thecalculation of the demand in terms of volume percent (converted fromweights on a specific gravity of 1.0 for water or typical watersolutions) is set forth below in Eq. (2) and is followed by itsconversion to gallons of product per 1,000 gallons of irrigation water.[(2.51 grams)×(0.150%)]/(121.1 grams)=0.311% by volume  (2)

From Eq. 2 it is determined that the “pH 3.0” demand for the presentformulation (at about 40 wt. percent actives) is 3.11 gallons/1,000gallons of irrigation water. The data of Tables 1 and 2 can likewise beused to calculate the demand of either additive for other defined pHs,such as for a pH of 6.5.

As seen from Cleaner Comparative Example 1 and Example 2, and fromTables 1 and 2, more product is required per 1000 gallons of irrigationwater for the present formulation than is required for the commercialN-pHURIC® formulation. The reason for this difference is that the as-isN-pHURIC® material is at a higher concentration and has a much greaterdensity than the formic acid formulation. The N-pHURIC® used in thisevaluation is composed, on a weight basis, of 32.14% urea, and 49.00%sulfuric acid in water. In contrast, the present formulation is 40.0%formic and 1.0% phosphonate (ATMP) in water. The same amount of acidity,of course, is required to neutralize the alkalinity of the irrigationwater. The dramatic benefit of the present formulation over a commercialproduct such as N-pHURIC® is seen when their modes of action areconsidered. When a micro-irrigation system is treated with N-pHURIC®, itmust be treated continuously, with the irrigation water flowing and theN-pHURIC® additive being fed, for an extended period of time (typicallynamely 4 to 6 hours) to dissolve any of the deposit fouling the system.The reason for this extended active-treatment time period is thatN-pHURIC® acts on calcium carbonate according to the reaction shown inEq. 3:(NH₂CONH₂)(H₂SO₄)_(aq)+CaCO_(3 s)→NH₂CONH_(2 aq)+CaSO_(4 s)+H₂O+CO_(2 g)  (3)

The reaction of Eq. 3 above reveals that the acidity of the N-pHURIC®dissolves the insoluble calcium carbonate and forms a slightly moresoluble, but still substantially insoluble, calcium sulfate as well asfree urea, water and carbon dioxide gas. This reaction, however, doesnot proceed beyond a negligible degree under substantially staticconditions. Instead, under substantially static conditions, as calciumcarbonate deposit begins to dissolve, the very slightly soluble calciumsulfate derived therefrom deposits onto the surface of the calciumcarbonate deposit, forming a film which passivates the surface of thedeposit, and thereby inhibits further calcium carbonate dissolution. Thepassivation of the calcium carbonate deposits with calcium sulfate, andresultant inhibition of calcium carbonate dissolution, is hampered, butpossibly not completely stopped, under dynamic conditions whereby thelocalization of calcium sulfate upon formation is reduced. Therefore, aconsiderable turbulence, such as that created by flowing irrigationwater, will to some degree boost the deposit dissolution activity ofsulfuric acid/urea adduct irrigation-system cleaners such as N-pHURIC®,although they remain very poor cleaners for removing deposits from themicro-irrigation system, even under prolonged periods of flowing water.

In contrast, the formic acid in the present formulation dissolves thecalcium carbonate in the micro-irrigation system, reacting with it toform the very soluble calcium formate plus carbon dioxide and water. Inaddition, the phosphonate will keep any other solids dispersed. Theoverall formic acid reaction with calcium carbonate is shown in Eq. 4below.2HCOOH_(aq)+CaCO_(3 s)→Ca⁺² _(aq)+2(HCOO)⁻ _(aq)+H₂O+CO_(2 g)  (4)

As is seen from Eq. 4, the mode of action for the present formulation istotally different than that of the sulfuric acid/urea adductirrigation-system cleaners. Since calcium formate is very soluble, thecalcium carbonate on the surface of the micro-irrigation system beginsto dissolve and continues to dissolve until all the calcium carbonate isremoved or the formic acid is totally consumed. Given the extremesolubility of calcium formate and the large excess of formic acidpresent when the formulation is charged into the irrigation water in asufficient amount to decrease the water pH to 3.0, a dynamic conditioncreated by large amounts of flowing water is not required to facilitatethe continuation of the cleaning dissolution to completion. This permitsthe present formulation to merely be introduced into themicro-irrigation system, without subsequent replenishment. Instead,after charging the formulation, the micro-irrigation system is simplyshut off for a hold period during which the present formulation is leftto totally dissolve and disperse any deposits. Such a hold periodusually lasts from about 3 to about 24 hours. At the end of the holdperiod, the irrigation water is turned back on and the micro-irrigationsystem is flushed out with regular irrigation water.

The manner in which a shock treatment cleaning is conducted has asignificant impact on the duration of the cleaner-feed interval, and ofcourse the amount of cleaning agent used. In the method of the presentinvention, using the cleaning composition of the present invention, thecleaner-feed interval only continues until a sufficiently low pH, suchas a pH of about 3.0, is realized substantially throughout the system,or part of the system, being cleaned. Typically, a pH of about 3.0 isseen at the end of the micro-irrigation system after about 40 to about60 minutes after the feeding of the present formulation begins. Asindicated above, upon reaching the desired pH, the feeding of thepresent formulation is discontinued and the water flow is shut off. Incomparison, a sulfuric acid/urea adduct type of cleaner, such asN-pHURIC®, must be continuously fed to a micro-irrigation systemthroughout the entire cleaning interval. The manufacturer'srecommendation for a clean-out or shock treatment using N-pHURIC GTO,which has a sulfuric acid equivalence of 49% and 15% urea (as N), is to(1) feed sufficient product into a micro-irrigation system to lower thepH to 2.5 or 3.0, (2) then operate at this pH level for three to sixhours (after the initial feed interval), and (3) then stop the injectionof the product and flush the system with just water. The presentformulation's much shorter feed time of about 40 to 60 minutes, comparedabout 4 to 6 hours or more for a sulfuric acid/urea adduct product ofcomparable actives, translates to approximately a four to six timeslower consumption of cleaning product, and that astounding achievementis accompanied by its far superior cleaning activity.

Cleaner Comparative Example 3 and Example 4, Usage Requirements

The usage requirements for the commercial sulfuric acid/urea adduct typeof cleaner sold under the N-pHURIC® brand name and for the formulationof the present invention, both of which are described above withreference to the determination of their respective demand curves, weredetermined as follows. The N-pHURIC® was determined to have a “pH of3.0” demand of 1.73 gallons of product per 1,000 gallons in theirrigation water which was tested. The present formulation wasdetermined to have a higher “pH of 3.0” demand of 3.11 gallons ofproduct per 1,000 gallons in the irrigation water which was tested.Presuming an upper-end shock-treatment feed period for each, namely 6hours for the N-pHURIC® product and 1 hour for the present formulation,the amount of N-pHURIC® used for a single shock treatment (622.8 gal.)was more than triple the amount of the present formulation (186.6 gal.),as seen in Eqs. (5) and (6) below respectively.(1.73 gal/1000 gal)×(1000 gal/min)×(60 min/hr)×6 hr=622.8 gallons  (5)(3.11 gal/1000 gal)×(1000 gal/min)×(60 min/hr)×1 hr=186.6 gallons  (6)

Cleaner Comparative Example 5 and Example 6, CaCO3 Dissolution

The comparative effectiveness of the commercial sulfuric acid/ureaadduct type of cleaner sold under the N-pHURIC® brand name and of theformulation of the present invention in dissolving a calcium carbonatedeposit under a substantially static water-flow condition was determinedunder a simulated “sea shell” test, as follows. Since sea shells arecomposed primarily of calcium carbonate together with a small amount oforganic material, and in that respect, they simulate calcium carbonatedeposits formed inside a micro-irrigation system, small particles of seashells were used to establish the effectiveness of the respectivecleaners in dissolving calcium carbonate deposits under substantiallystatic water-flow conditions. In each test, an approximately 0.05-gramparticle of a sea shell was placed into a 100 ml Erlenmeyer flaskcontaining 100 ml of a 10% by volume aqueous solution of the respectivecleaning product (N-pHURIC® or the present formulation). The sea shellparticles were then weighed at time intervals and recorded respectivelyin Tables 3 and 4 below.

The formation of carbon dioxide within the first few seconds, and thenits almost immediate cessation, was observed in the flask in which a seashell particle was immersed in diluted N-pHURIC®, and there was nofurther evolution of carbon dioxide thereafter. This phenomenon isconsistent with the passivation of the calcium carbonate particle by afilm of calcium sulfate, and the ensuing inhibition of calcium carbonatedissolution, in the presence of a sulfuric acid/urea adduct under thesubstantially static conditions discussed above. In addition, thepassivation of the sea shell particle and inhibition of dissolution isalso demonstrated by the small weight loss in the first minute (lessthan 2 wt. percent) followed by negligible weight loss (less than 8 wt.percent total) over the next six hours. (See the data of Table 3 above.)The calcium carbonate (sea shell) particle appears unaffected and justremains in the bottom of the flask.

TABLE 3 Cleaner Comparative Example 5 Sea Shell Particle Dissolution in10% N-pHURIC ® Elapsed Time (min.) Sea Shell Particle Weight (grams) 00.053 1 0.052 2 0.051 5 0.050 60 0.049 120 0.050 240 0.049 480 0.048 7200.048

TABLE 4 Cleaner Example 6 Sea Shell Particle Dissolution in 10% PresentFormulation Elapsed Time (min.) Sea Shell Particle Weight (grams) 00.065 1 0.049 2 0.038 5 0.019 10 0.011 15 Present but too small toisolate 20 Totally dissolved

In contrast, the sea shell particle immersed in the diluted presentformulation was observed to begin to liberate carbon dioxideimmediately, and to continue to evolve carbon dioxide until the time atwhich the particle was totally dissolved. As indicated by the data ofTable 4 above, the sea shell particle was completely dissolved within 20minutes, and any other materials liberated during the dissolutionprocess were not detectable and thus presumably dispersed in solution bythe phosphonate in the formulation. This is all consistent with theformation of the very soluble calcium formate upon the mechanism offormic acid dissolution of calcium carbonate discussed above, plus thekeeping of any other material in fine suspension via the dispersantactivity of the phosphonate in the formulation.

Another advantage of the present formulation is its low corrosivity. Asmentioned above, micro-irrigation systems are typically constructed fromplastic and metal, such as mild steel, components. Strong mineral acidssuch as sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric and phosphoric acids arecorrosive and if not handled very carefully when used in or aboutmicro-irrigation systems these acids can damage the metal and plasticcomponents. Although the commercial N-pHURIC® product is an adduct ofurea and sulfuric acid, rather than a mixture, it is still verycorrosive when compared to the formic-acid based formulation of thepresent invention, as demonstrated in Cleaner Comparative Examples 7 and8, and Cleaner Examples 9 and 10 below.

Cleaner Comparative Examples 7 and 8, and Examples 9 and 10, Corrosion

Mild steel corrosion coupons (standard test coupons for determining thecorrosivity of a given environment) were each separately suspended inequal volumes of the following: (a) the commercial N-pHURIC® productneat (Cleaner Comparative Example 7); (b) a 5 percent aqueous solutionof the commercial N-pHURIC® product (Cleaner Comparative Example 8); (c)the about 40 percent actives formulation of the present invention neat(Cleaner Example 9); and (d) a 5 percent aqueous solution of theformulation of the present invention (Cleaner Example 10). The weightsof coupons with elapsed time were determined and recorded, and thepercent coupon loss was calculated therefrom. The data for each(comparative) example is set forth in Tables 5 to 8 below.

TABLE 5 Cleaner Comparative Example 7 N-pHURIC ® (neat, as is) ElapsedTime Coupon Weight Wt. Percent Coupon Loss  0 hrs. 1.15 g 0.0%  3 hrs.1.13 g 1.7%  6 hrs. 1.12 g 2.6%  24 hrs. 1.09 g 5.2%  48 hrs. 1.03 g10.4%  72 hrs. 1.01 g 12.2% 144 hrs. 0.99 g 13.9%

TABLE 6 Cleaner Comparative Example 8 5 percent N-pHURIC ® in waterElapsed Time Coupon Weight Wt. Percent Coupon Loss  0 hrs. 1.16 g 0.0% 3 hrs. 1.13 g 2.6%  6 hrs. 1.11 g 4.3%  24 hrs. 0.95 g 18.1%  48 hrs.0.53 g 54.3%  72 hrs. 0.22 g 81.0% 144 hrs. 0.00 g 100.0%

TABLE 7 Cleaner Example 9 Present Formulation (neat, as is) Elapsed TimeCoupon Weight Wt. Percent Coupon Loss  0 hrs. 1.16 g 0.0%  3 hrs. 1.15 g0.9%  6 hrs. 1.13 g 2.6%  24 hrs. 1.12 g 3.4%  48 hrs. 1.12 g 3.4%  72hrs. 1.11 g 4.3% 144 hrs. 1.11 g 4.3%

TABLE 8 Cleaner Example 10 5% Present Formulation in water Elapsed TimeCoupon Weight Wt. Percent Coupon Loss  0 hrs. 1.15 g 0.0%  3 hrs. 1.14 g0.9%  6 hrs. 1.14 g 0.9%  24 hrs. 1.12 g 2.6%  48 hrs. 1.10 g 4.3%  72hrs. 1.08 g 6.1% 144 hrs. 1.03 g 10.4%

As indicated in the data of Tables 5-8 above, a sulfuric acid/ureaadduct cleaner, such as the commercial N-pHURIC® product, issignificantly more corrosive than the formic acid-based formulation ofthe present invention. Further, the corrosivity of the commercialN-pHURIC® product, as measured by wt. percent coupon loss, is greater indilute aqueous solution than the neat product at all time intervalstested, and leads to total consumption of the test coupon at or prior tothe end of the 144-hour test.

Distribution Uniformity Test

The distribution uniformity evaluation is a test developed by CaliforniaPolytechnic University to quantify the distribution, or lack thereof, ofwater to the crop that is being irrigated. Distribution uniformity, or“DU,” is the measurement of the uniformity of the distribution ordelivery of water throughout the entire block that is being irrigated.DU is a ratio comparison of the “lower quarter” delivery of water to theoverall average delivery of water within the block being evaluated. Thenumeric DU of a block is the average water-delivery volume per unit timeof the 25 percent poorest-performing (in terms of water delivery)emitters divided by the average water-delivery volume per unit time ofall of the emitters, or DU=A¼LA100, wherein “A¼L” is the average of thelowest ¼ collected-water values and “A100” is the average of all of thecollected-water values. In practice, a statistically-significantproportion of the emitters on the micro-irrigation system are tested,and the water emitted from each while under normal irrigation-systemwater flow is collected during a given time interval, for instance 5minutes, measured and the DU is determined from the averages after thelowest 25 percent are identified. This test was devised for use inirrigation management particularly to avoid under-irrigation bycompensating for non-uniformity with application of extra irrigationwater. To measure this ratio, a statistically-significant number of dripemitters are tested and the amount of water collected for each emitteris determined per unit time. The average (“average”) delivery rate forall emitters collected is determined. Then the average delivery rate isdetermined for the lowest 25% of the emitters (“lower ¼”).

A high DU means that the emitters in the micro-irrigation system areoperating properly and there is little or no fouling or plugging of themicro-irrigation system. Typical DUs for a newly installedmicro-irrigation system are usually in the 85 to 90 percent range. DUsconducted before and after a cleaner is used normally provide a goodevaluation of the cleaner's effectiveness.

Cleaner Example 11, Distribution Uniformity Evaluation

To determine the efficacy of the present formulation in cleaning amicro-irrigation system, a DU evaluation was conducted on a 45-acrevineyard that was known to have areas in which there was poordistribution of water to some of the grape vines. This particular ranchwas irrigated in two sections or blocks of approximately 20.5 acres and24.5 acres. This division of the acreage into two irrigation blocks isnecessitated by limits on the volume that can be pumped into the fieldand delivered to the crop, which in turn depends on the size of the pumpas well as the elevation of the crops being irrigated. The 20.5-acreblock was chosen for this study because the grower reported that thisblock appeared to have the most plugged emitters. A statisticallysignificant number of emitters were selected and assigned identificationnumbers of 1 through 100. The time interval of water collection fromeach emitter was five minutes for each stage of the evaluation. First, a“before treatment” DU test was conducted, and the water collected fromeach of the 100 emitters was measured and recorded. Then the blockunderwent a shock treatment using the formulation of the presentinvention as described above. After completion of the shock treatment,including the final step of flushing the system with water, an “aftertreatment” DU test was conducted, and the water collected from each ofthe same 100 emitters was measured and recorded. This data, plus thecalculated before and after totals and averages (A100), are set forth inTable 9 below.

TABLE 9 Cleaner Example 11 Distribution Uniformity (“DU”) Evaluation.All Emitters Tested Volume of Water Collected (ml) in five minutesEmitter No. Before Treatment After Treatment 1 133 156 2 142 161 3 8 1244 150 171 5 89 163 6 121 163 7 137 159 8 121 165 9 71 142 10 0 5 11 151157 12 142 178 13 21 150 14 101 161 15 0 72 16 132 153 17 142 172 18 151169 19 130 167 20 111 171 21 89 159 22 121 159 23 141 169 24 160 167 25147 151 26 0 0 27 119 162 28 76 170 29 42 142 30 149 171 31 111 166 32150 161 33 141 149 34 156 171 35 80 154 36 67 161 37 121 150 38 141 15939 118 171 40 138 168 41 69 142 42 21 157 43 145 161 44 139 146 45 150165 46 155 178 47 134 172 48 123 169 49 152 178 50 90 145 51 129 161 52141 163 53 72 159 54 6 145 55 150 171 56 142 162 57 136 158 58 101 14259 149 167 60 160 165 61 155 162 62 144 159 63 147 178 64 160 166 65 89149 66 123 159 67 23 99 68 139 149 69 142 161 70 159 162 71 148 160 7278 154 73 5 7 74 129 160 75 158 182 76 149 167 77 161 166 78 159 162 79149 172 80 154 171 81 172 169 82 147 162 83 155 169 84 158 173 85 131162 86 151 166 87 139 149 88 16 145 89 145 162 90 97 157 91 154 169 9233 145 93 101 159 94 158 165 95 158 149 96 171 167 97 160 162 98 129 15599 152 159 100 102 154 Total 11,884 15,468 Average 118.9 154.7

Then the lowest 25% of the emitters (“lower 114”) of the “beforetreatment” DU test were identified and their collected-water data plusthe calculated before totals and averages (A¼) are set forth in Table 10below.

TABLE 10 Cleaner Example 11 Lower ¼ - Before Treatment Volume of WaterCollected (ml) in five minutes Emitter No. Before Treatment AfterTreatment 3 8 124 5 89 163 9 71 142 10 0 5 13 21 150 14 101 161 15 0 7221 89 159 26 0 0 28 76 170 29 42 142 35 80 154 36 67 161 41 69 142 42 21157 50 90 145 53 72 159 54 6 145 65 89 149 67 23 99 72 78 154 73 5 7 8816 145 90 97 157 92 33 145 Total 1,243 Average 49.72

Although the “after treatment” volumes for this set of emitters islisted in Table 10, as that data normally is listed in a DU evaluation,it is not taken into consideration because the “after treatment” lowest25 percent of emitters are identified from the “after treatment”delivery performances and therefore that set of emitters is not exactlythe same. The lowest 25% of the emitters (“lower ¼”) of the “aftertreatment” DU test were identified and their collected-water data plusthe calculated before totals and averages (A¼) are set forth in Table 11below.

TABLE 11 Cleaner Example 11 Lower ¼ - After Treatment Volume of WaterCollected (ml) in five minutes Emitter No. Before Treatment AfterTreatment 3 8 124 9 71 142 10 0 5 13 21 150 15 0 72 25 147 151 26 0 0 2942 142 33 141 149 35 80 154 37 121 150 41 69 142 44 139 146 50 90 145 546 145 58 101 142 65 89 149 67 23 99 68 139 149 72 78 154 73 5 7 87 139149 88 16 145 92 33 145 95 158 149 Total 3,105 Average 124.2

From the calculated averages listed on Tables 27-29, the “beforetreatment” and “after treatment” DU values were determined as set forthin Eqs. (7) and (8) below.Before Treatment: DU=49.72/118.9×100=41.8%  (7)After Treatment: DU=124.2/154.7×100=80.3%  (8)

The “before” and “after” treatment DU values of Cleaner Example 11 incomparison indicate the vast improvement in irrigation-waterdistribution uniformity that can be achieved with a shock treatmentusing the formulation of the present invention. This improveddistribution uniformity translates into a significant water conservationand cost savings. For example, assuming the crop being irrigatedrequires 1.5 acre-feet of water (488,777 gallons)/acre, the amount ofadditional water required to avoid under-irrigation before and aftertreatment is set forth below in Eqs. 9 and 10.Before Treatment: (1.5 acre-feet/acre)/0.418=3.59 acre-feet/acre  (9)After Treatment: (1.5 acre-feet/acre)/0.803=1.87 acre-feet/acre  (10)

This 1.72 acre-feet/acre saving of water represents a huge cost savingsfor the water, the energy required for pumping that water, and thefertilizer that is injected into the irrigation water.

Cleaner Comparative Example 12 and Example 13, CaCO₃ Dissolution

The Japanese patent publication Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2004-217919), whichis referred to herein as “Yamaguchi et al.,” discloses the use of acombination of a persulfate and citric (or malic) acid to clean amicro-irrigation system through which a dissolved manure is delivered asfertilizer (referred to therein as a liquid fertilizer) in a hydroponicsystem. Such manure or like biological material would exist as residualsin the Yamaguchi et al. system.

To provide a definitive comparison between the method of the presentinvention and the method disclosed in Yamaguchi et al., the formulationused in the Yamaguchi et al. method was used in a sea shell, the testparameters of which are described above in Comparative Example 5 andExample 6. Any differences between the test procedure described inComparative Example 5 and Example 6 and that used Comparative Example 12and Example 13 are set forth below.

Because a slight amount of manure was added to the test solutions toactivate the persulfate as provided in Yamaguchi et al., it was alsoadded in sea shell test performed on a formulation of the presentinvention, both as a comparative and as a control to establish that thepresence of manure did not impact the sea-shell test's significance orconsequence.

In each of the tests of these Comparative Example 12 and Example 13,referred to herein as CE-12 and E-13, two sea shell fragments eachweighing approximately 0.2 gram were placed into separate 100 mlErlenmeyer flasks (CE-12 and E-13) each containing 100 ml of an aqueoussolution. The CE-12 solution contained a formulation of Yamaguchi et al.at a 4 wt. percent actives concentration of each of its components (acidand persulfate) plus a trace amount of manure. The E-13 solutioncontained a formulation of the present invention at a 4 wt. percentactives concentration (acid) plus a trace amount of manure.

The Yamaguchi et al. actives in the CE-12 solution were sodiumpersulfate (4 grams as actives) and citric acid (4 grams as actives) toprovide a 50/50 actives weight ratio. The present invention's actives inthe E-13 solution were formic acid (4 grams as actives). To assure thatthe trace of manure present in each was at the same concentration, itwas added to each flask as 25 ml of a very dilute aqueous manuresolution.

The weights of the respective sea shell fragments versus the elapse oftime are set forth below in Table 12.

TABLE 12 E-13 CE-12 Time (min) Sea shell wt. (g.) Sea shell wt. (g.) 00.193 0.199 1 0.187 0.200 2 0.180 0.201 5 0.155 0.198 10 0.132 0.196 150.115 0.195 20 0.105 0.194 30 0.098 0.193 60 0.071 0.190 90 0.059 0.191120 0.031 0.190 180 0.010 0.188 240 too small to weigh 0.187 270 gone0.186 480 0.183 720 0.178 1440 0.164 2880 0.152 4320 0.141 5760 0.1337200 0.120 10080 0.095 14400 0.066

The conversion from elapsed time in minutes to elapsed time in days inTable 12 above is as follows: 1,440 min. is one day; 2,880 min. is twodays; 4,320 minutes is three days; 5,760 minutes is four days; 7,200minutes is five days; 10,080 minutes is seven days; and 14,400 minutesis ten days.

The data set forth on Table 12 establishes the vast performancedifference between the method of the present invention and the methoddisclosed in Yamaguchi et al.

The weight of the fragment in solution E-13 declines rapidly (a greaterthan 49 wt. % dissolution in 30 min.) and continually as it approachescomplete dissolution. The weight of the fragment in Solution CE-12declines barely (a merely 3 wt. % dissolution in 30 min.) and haltingly,with no dissolution at all detected between elapsed times of 60 minutesand 120 minutes (when at a mere 4.5 wt. % dissolution stage).

The data set forth on Table 12 further shows for E-13 a greater than 60wt. % dissolution in 1 hour and continually as it reaches almost 95 wt.% dissolution in 3 hours. See Table 12. Complete dissolution is reachedby 270 min. or 4.5 hr. The weight of the fragment in Solution CE-12provides less than 5 wt. % dissolution in 1 hour and then haltingly,with almost no dissolution at all detected between elapsed times of 1hour and 3 hours, when it changes from merely 4.5 wt. % dissolution tomerely 5.5 wt. % dissolution.

Still further, as shown in Table 12 for CE-12, not only is the rate ofdissolution during the first day extremely sluggish, providing only atotal fragment-sample weight loss of less than 18 wt. % the entire day,the rate of dissolution actually decreases after the first day.Quantifying this decreasing dissolution rate using the data of Table 12,it is seen that the rate of dissolution per day drops from the initial18 wt. percent to 7.3 wt. percent during the second day, 7.2 wt. percentduring the third day, 5.7 wt. percent during the fourth day, and 9.8 wt.percent during the fifth day. Moreover, the total fragment weight lossis merely 35 percent after five days, and only 66 percent after tendays.

In summary of the data set forth in Table 12 above, the method of thepresent invention rapidly dissolves the sea shell fragment and continuesto dissolve the sea shell fragment until it is completely dissolved.Complete dissolution was achieved within four and a half hours. Themethod of Yamaguchi et al., when used as required for the presentmethod, does not approach complete dissolution in one day, or even fivedays, and the half-way dissolution point is barely reached in ten days.

In micro-irrigation systems, and as meant and understood herein, calciumcarbonate deposits are seldom pure calcium carbonate and include a minoramount of other foulants such as magnesium carbonate for example. Bycalcium carbonate deposits is meant and understood herein to be depositsthat substantially comprise calcium carbonate and are at least 90 wt.percent calcium carbonate.

In preferred embodiments of the invention, after feeding the cleaningsolution to a micro-irrigation system, the flow of irrigation water isstopped and allowed to stand for up to twenty-four hours to dissolve thedeposits, after which the irrigation-system block is flushed. The methodof the present invention, in other words, interrupts irrigation to anentire block in a micro-irrigation system for up to twenty-four hours.For growers, that is an enormous time period that would be intolerableif not for the fact that such downside is balanced by the benefits goingforward of a well cleaned micro-irrigation system. Prolonging thatsystem interruption even farther, for instance to two or three days,would be intolerable even if great results were achieved, which they arenot with the Yamaguchi et al. method. Further, the data of Table 12indicates that the results using the Yamaguchi et al. method remainunacceptable even after five and ten days.

In a preferred embodiment of particular efficacy, practicality andeconomy, the present invention is a method using a micro-irrigationsystem cleaning formulation wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution contains from about 20 to about 60 parts by weight of thewater-soluble organic acid per 100 parts by weight of the aqueouscleaning-formulation solution, wherein the water-soluble organic acid issubstantially formic acid, and wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution further contains a sufficient amount of a water-solublephosphonate dispersant selected from the group consisting of 1-hydroxyethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP) and amino-tris(methylene phosphonicacid) (ATMP).

In another preferred embodiment of particular efficacy, practicality andeconomy, the present invention is a method using a micro-irrigationsystem cleaning formulation wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution contains from about 20 to about 60 parts by weight of thewater-soluble organic acid per 100 parts by weight of the aqueouscleaning-formulation solution, wherein the water-soluble organic acid ispredominantly formic acid, and wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution further contains a sufficient amount of a water-solublephosphonate dispersant selected from the group consisting of 1-hydroxyethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP) and amino-tris(methylene phosphonicacid) (ATMP).

In another preferred embodiment of particular efficacy, practicality andeconomy, the present invention is a method using a micro-irrigationsystem cleaning formulation wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution contains from about 10 to about 80 parts by weight of thewater-soluble organic acid per 100 parts by weight of the aqueouscleaning-formulation solution, wherein the water-soluble organic acid ispredominantly formic acid, and wherein the aqueous cleaning-formulationsolution further contains from about 0.001 to about 5 parts by weight ofa water-soluble phosphonate dispersant per 100 parts by weight of theaqueous solution.

The method of the present invention also generates a cleansingirrigation water comprising, in combination, a natural source water andan effective amount of a water-soluble organic acid, wherein the watersoluble organic acid has a pK(1)a (in other words, either a pKa or apK1a) of less than about 4.0. In preferred embodiments, the cleansingirrigation water contains from about 0.01 to about 1.0 parts by weightof the water-soluble organic acid per 100 parts by weight of theirrigation water. In certain preferred embodiments, the cleansingirrigation water contains a sufficient amount of the water-solubleorganic acid to provide a pH of from about 2.5 to about 3.0.

In a preferred embodiment of particular efficacy, practicality andeconomy, the water-soluble organic acid is substantially formic acid andthe cleansing irrigation water further contains a sufficient amount of awater-soluble phosphonate dispersant selected from the group consistingof 1-hydroxy ethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP) andamino-tris(methylene phosphonic acid) (ATMP). In another preferredembodiment of particular efficacy, practicality and economy, thewater-soluble organic acid is predominantly formic acid and thecleansing irrigation water further contains a sufficient amount of awater-soluble phosphonate dispersant selected from the group consistingof I-hydroxy ethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP) andamino-tris(methylene phosphonic acid) (ATMP).

In a further preferred embodiment of particular efficacy, practicalityand economy, the water-soluble organic acid is predominantly formic acidand the cleansing irrigation water further contains from about 0.005 toabout 20 parts by weight of a water-soluble phosphonate dispersant per100 parts by weight of the water-soluble organic acid.

The present invention provides a method of cleaning a micro-irrigationsystem, comprising the steps of: (1) introducing a sufficient amount ofa cleaning formulation containing a sufficient concentration of awater-soluble organic acid having a pK(1)a of less than about 4.0 toirrigation water; and (2) feeding the irrigation water to themicro-irrigation system. The method of cleaning a micro-irrigationsystem preferably includes the steps of: introducing a sufficient amountof the cleaning formulation to the irrigation water to lower the pH ofthe irrigation water to about 2.5 to about 3.5; feeding the acidifiedirrigation water to the micro-irrigation system for a sufficient timeperiod to distribute the acidified irrigation water substantiallythroughout a block of the micro-irrigation system; then stopping theflow of the irrigation water; then allowing the acidified irrigationwater to stand in the block of the micro-irrigation system for asufficient amount of time; and then flushing the block of themicro-irrigation system.

In other preferred embodiments, the method of cleaning amicro-irrigation system further includes the steps of: introducing asufficient amount of the cleaning formulation to the irrigation water tolower the pH of the irrigation water to about 2.5 to about 3.5; feedingthe acidified irrigation water to the micro-irrigation system for asufficient time period to distribute the acidified irrigation watersubstantially throughout a block of the micro-irrigation system; thenstopping the flow of the irrigation water; then allowing the acidifiedirrigation water to stand in the block of the micro-irrigation systemfor a time period of from about 3 to about 24 hours; and then flushingthe block of the micro-irrigation system.

In further preferred embodiments, the method of cleaning amicro-irrigation system includes the steps of: introducing a sufficientamount of the cleaning formulation to the irrigation water to lower thepH of the irrigation water to about 2.5 to about 3.5; feeding theacidified irrigation water to the micro-irrigation system for a timeperiod of from about 40 to about 60 minutes to distribute the acidifiedirrigation water substantially throughout a block of themicro-irrigation system; then stopping the flow of the irrigation water;then allowing the acidified irrigation water to stand in the block ofthe micro-irrigation system for a time period of from about 3 to about24 hours to dissolve deposits in the micro-irrigation system; and thenflushing the block of the micro-irrigation system.

In still further preferred embodiments, the cleaning formulation furthercontains a sufficient amount of a water-soluble phosphonate dispersantand the method of cleaning a micro-irrigation system includes the stepsof: introducing a sufficient amount of the cleaning formulation to theirrigation water to lower the pH of the irrigation water to about 2.5 toabout 3.5; feeding the acidified irrigation water to themicro-irrigation system for a time period of from about 40 to about 60minutes to distribute the acidified irrigation water substantiallythroughout a block of the micro-irrigation system; then stopping theflow of the irrigation water; then allowing the acidified irrigationwater to stand in the block of the micro-irrigation system for a timeperiod of from about 3 to about 24 hours to dissolve deposits andsuspend particles in the micro-irrigation system; and then flushing theblock of the micro-irrigation system.

In preferred embodiments generally, the micro-irrigation system cleanedis one fouled by calcium carbonate deposits and the method of thepresent invention completely dissolves the calcium carbonate deposits.

While the foregoing written description of the invention enables one ofordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention, and to make anduse what is presently considered the best mode of the invention, thoseof ordinary skill in the art will understand and appreciate theexistence of variations, combinations and equivalents of the specificembodiments, methods and examples provided herein. The present inventionshould not be limited by the above described embodiments, methods andexamples.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of cleaning a block of an irrigationsystem or protect the block of the irrigation system against corrosion,comprising: introducing a cleaning formulation comprising water, awater-soluble organic acid having an anion that forms a water-solublecalcium salt, and a water-soluble phosphonate dispersant to irrigationwater to form a dispersant-containing irrigation water, whereinintroducing said cleaning formulation lowers a pH of saiddispersant-containing irrigation water to 2.5 to 3.5, and saidwater-soluble phosphonate dispersant is present in an amount of from0.0005 to 16 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the cleaningformulation; distributing said dispersant-containing irrigation waterthroughout said block of said irrigation system; allowing saiddispersant-containing irrigation water to stand in said block of saidirrigation system for a time period of from 3 to 24 hours; and thenflushing said block of said irrigation system.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein said water-soluble phosphonate dispersant is a water-solubleorthophosphonate dispersant.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein saidwater-soluble phosphonate dispersant is selected from the groupconsisting of 1-hydroxy ethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP),amino-tris(methylene phosphonic acid) (ATMP), and sodium, potassium andammonium salts thereof.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein saidwater-soluble organic acid has a pK(1)a of less than 4.0.
 5. The methodof claim 1, wherein said water-soluble organic acid is formic acid. 6.The method of claim 1, wherein distributing said dispersant-containingirrigation water throughout said block of said irrigation systemcomprises feeding the dispersant-containing irrigation water to theirrigation system to distribute the dispersant-containing irrigationwater throughout the block of the irrigation system.
 7. The method ofclaim 6, wherein the dispersant-containing irrigation water is fed tothe micro-irrigation system for a time period of from 40 to 60 minutes.8. The method of claim 6, wherein the irrigation system is amicro-irrigation system, and the dispersant-containing irrigation wateris fed to the micro-irrigation system for a time period of from 40 to 60minutes.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein said cleaning formulationcontains 0.005 to 20 parts by weight of said water-soluble phosphonatedispersant per 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble organic acid.10. The method of claim 1, wherein the cleaning formulation isintroduced at a rate or level of from 1 to 10 kg of actives per acreserved by the irrigation system.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein thecleaning formulation contains from 10 to 80 parts by weight of thewater-soluble organic acid per 100 parts by weight of the cleaningformulation.
 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the cleaningformulation contains from 20 to 60 parts by weight of the water-solubleorganic acid per 100 parts by weight of the cleaning formulation. 13.The method of claim 1, wherein the dispersant-containing irrigationwater contains from 0.01 to 1.0 parts by weight of the water-solubleorganic acid per 100 parts by weight of the dispersant-containingirrigation water.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the irrigationsystem includes (i) irrigation tubing that is above ground and (ii)emitters or micro-sprinklers.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein thewater-soluble calcium salt has a solubility in water of at least 2,000ppm.
 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the solubility in water of thewater-soluble calcium salt is over 5,000 ppm.
 17. The method of claim 1,wherein allowing said dispersant-containing irrigation water to stand insaid block of said irrigation system removes or solubilizes deposits,keeps solids dispersed, or suspends particles in said block of saidirrigation system.